Hey Brett,
If I in any way implied that there was anything approaching a censensus among historians and analysts that conflict with China was inevitable, allow me to restate. Samual Huntington (sp?) and many who follow the school of thought he outlines in Clash of Civilizations believes that conflict with China is inevitable. While Huntington's theories are far from perfect, and are in many ways a little outlandish, much of what he wrote just after the Cold War seems to be coming to pass. Indeed, nearly every major conflict since the fall of the Berlin wal has been along some ethnic, religious, or cultural line--The wars in the Balkans and the war on terror, notably--and not driven by secular ideology (communism or fascism vs. democracy and liberalism for instance) or strategic necessity. Of course all wars are strategic in a sense, so I'm just generalizing.
Huntington bases his belief in an inevitable *conflict* with China on the idea that they will inevitably seek dominance in SE Asia--a pretty damned good bet--and that we will resist their hegemonic ambitions--also a good bet. The theory of interdependence as a hurdle to armed conflict--I'm sure there's a name for it--has, admittedly, held pretty true. Said interdependence is not, however, a guarantor of peace. It only makes war more difficult and impractical. If grievances become intolerable, treaty obligations are invoked, or national security is at stake, war will likely ensue.
For instance, we are pledged to defend Taiwan from a mainland-Chinese invasion. I believe we would honor that commitment. We are pledged to the democracy and security of Japan and South Korea--I'm sure we would honor those. While it is unlikely that China would overtly attack the Japanese or the Koreans, it is very likely that the Chinese will view the status quo in Asia--including our military presence and Taiwan's relative independence--as detrimental to their regional ambitions. I have a hard time believing that they won't eventually take some action. They don't share our ideas, our values, or our political institutions. Believe it or not, our economic ties only buy us so much security.
Concerning our ability to defeat them....From what I can gather from open-source material, the government is quite confident that any conflict with China, from a skirmish to a full-scale nuclear exchange, would inevitably end in an American victory. Our defense spending outpaces theirs (the figures that we estimate, not that they report) by over 5:1. Much of that is devoted to R&D. It has been widely conceded that the outcome of modern wars will not be a function of men on the ground--especially since we have not real need to occupy China if can cripple them--but of the ability to efficiently project and deploy massive force. China has no blue water Navy, no effective air defenses, and a largely antiquated technological infrastructure. The developed countries of the world have denied them much of our military technology (arms embargo) for nearly 20 years. A position paper circulated by their government itself concludes that no power will be in a position to challenge the United States militarily anytime before the mid-part of the century. Arrogance aside, we have been pouring trillions of dollars into creating the most powerful military in history for nearly 70 years. A decade of sustained economic growth (for China) can't make up for that overnight. If they can keep their economy afloat, which itself is debatable (it must grow at a rate that is likely unsustainable (7%) to keep up with its population), they will still face the energy limitations that we do--they get oil from the same places--and crushing defense budgets.
An alliance with Russia could ease some of their concerns in the energy department, but such a partnership is increasingly unlikely as Russia continues to look west for partnership with European nations.
If the sh!t did hit the fan, we could probably count on the British and the Japanese for a little help. Not bad partners to have in your corner.
Now the EU's a whole 'nother argument...
) one day. I'm all too familiar w/ Huntington. While interesting, the guy's a maverick and his "clash" concepts are almost universally discounted by people in my circles (my circles meaning a bunch of PhDs and 50 pound heads) from both sides of the political spectrum.